On 2023-03-08 1:54 p.m., Ted Bullock wrote:
> 
> On 2023-03-08 1:24 p.m., Todd C. Miller wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 13:19:39 -0700, Ted Bullock wrote:
>>
>>> I can see why it triggers, it's comparing identical timestamps, not
>>> relative. This is inconsistent with the error text too which explicitly
>>> says "file modified more recently than this copy".
>>>
>>> timespeccmp(&sb.st_mtim, &ep->mtim, !=)
>>>
>>> should be
>>>
>>> timespeccmp(&sb.st_mtim, &ep->mtim, <=)
>>
>> Are you saying that the current mtime is _older_ than the original?
>> Is this just a matter of the nsec portion being truncated?
>>
>>  - todd
> 
> Here is a sample of the actual numbers, it's not a truncation.
> 
> sb.st_mtim.tv_sec: 1678308226, sb.st_mtim.tv_nsec: 125222348
> ep->mtim.tv_sec: 1678308226, ep->mtim.tv_nsec: 55250221
> 

sb.st_mtim.tv_sec: 1678309512, sb.st_mtim.tv_nsec: 345233906
ep->mtim.tv_sec: 1678309512, ep->mtim.tv_nsec: 265227205
Diff in Nanoseconds: 80006701

sb.st_mtim.tv_sec: 1678309597, sb.st_mtim.tv_nsec: 395231222
ep->mtim.tv_sec: 1678309597, ep->mtim.tv_nsec: 335248371
Diff in Nanoseconds: 59982851

sb.st_mtim.tv_sec: 1678309689, sb.st_mtim.tv_nsec: 345222289
ep->mtim.tv_sec: 1678309689, ep->mtim.tv_nsec: 285228238
Diff in Nanoseconds: 59994051

Some further tests, ep->mtim is running around 0.6 to 0.8 seconds ahead.

-- 
Ted Bullock <tbullock@comlore.com>